Theist Contradictions

[Kamehameha34]

Logic is completely dependent on its premises. If the premises are correct, the conclusion is correct. If the premises are incorrect, then you've just poorly defined your subject (and it no longer constitutes logic.)

You're thinking too much about inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can never be wrong.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Who said I accept causality as a premise?

So you subscribe to acausality?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Logic is completely dependent on its premises. If the premises are correct, the conclusion is correct. If the premises are incorrect, then you've just poorly defined your subject (and it no longer constitutes logic.) You're thinking too much about inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can never be wrong.

You have to show that a postulate, as it were, always, as much as possible, works. Considering how small human experience is, it seems arrogant to say that because it works in our tiny sphere of influence It has to work everywhere.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So you subscribe to acausality?

Perhaps, who am I, who knows so little, to say that everything must and absolutely have a cause?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You have to show that a postulate, as it were, always, as much as possible, works. Considering how small human experience is, it seems arrogant to say that because it works in our tiny sphere of influence It has to work everywhere.

Yes, it applies to everything. To say that it doesn't is comparable to saying that mathematics doesn't work everywhere.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Perhaps, who am I, who knows so little, to say that everything must and absolutely have a cause?

So if you don't attack big bang theorists with "it had to be caused by god because of causality", then this thread doesn't concern anything else you're arguing.

[Kamehameha34]

Let me pose a question for you:

Zargon 11x42 is on the other side of the universe. There are no blue people on planet Zargon 11x42.

Fred is on planet Zargon 11x42. Is Fred blue?



Where you apply deductive reasoning is irrelevant.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Assuming you have proof there are no blue people on Zargon.

[Kamehameha34]

In logic, you only start with 100% correct premises. Always.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes, it applies to everything. To say that it doesn't is comparable to saying that mathematics doesn't work everywhere.

Can you prove that mathematics works every where? no, you haven't been everywhere, not by a long shot, although I agree I'm leading this thread off topic, so I'll stop with this debate.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 In logic, you only start with 100% correct premises. Always.

O.K., one last one, can you prove that all your premises are correct? unless you state something that you have specifically observed (which still could be wrong) then it is really just our best guess as to whether it is right, which is all human investigation really is in the first place, our best guess.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Gods_M Prove that something can't exist outside of logic.. What logic really means doesn't matter, it's a human defenition that can very well be wrong.

Well, since the whole thing about using the same process to arrive at conclusions was developed by the Ancient Greeks, then logic is a human invention, too.

I guess that means since God is not a natural idea, and logic is not a natural idea, both have to be learned, then they both do not exist.

Quote by: Kame There's no such thing as "transcending logic"

First of all, "logic" is the word for the process, not the validity of the result.

Second, logic, as I pointed out above, the application of rules to arrive at a conclusion, is a human process.

Just as the laws of science are established by humans.

Other humans see things differently. Let alone something non-terrestrial.

Besides, any theist could simply say:
"So God doesn't conform to the human created laws of science and rules of logic? Isn't that like saying a Ferrari can't possibly break the speed limit of 30 MPH in Podunk, Idaho?"

[Kamehameha34]

Not when you start with a self-defining principle.

For example, when we put "god" through the logical process, we are proving something about anything that fits the definition of "god". Let's say that, with logic, we proved that god existed. We would have proven that any being that is defined by what we put in the logical process exists.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, at least we're back on God

[Kamehameha34]

First of all, "logic" is the word for the process, not the validity of the result.

I don't see how this is relevant. If you have anything about this point, take it to the special debate.

Second, logic, as I pointed out above, the application of rules to arrive at a conclusion, is a human process.

The application of force to drive in a nail is also a human invention. Does that mean it is not effective if the one driving in the nail misses?

Just as the laws of science are established by humans.

This really isn't about the laws of science.

Other humans see things differently. Let alone something non-terrestrial.

There's really no room to validly see differently, unless you employ inductive, or informal logic. It's hardly worth mention, IMO.

Besides, any theist could simply say: "So God doesn't conform to the human created laws of science and rules of logic? Isn't that like saying a Ferrari can't possibly break the speed limit of 30 MPH in Podunk, Idaho?"

Comparable to saying "god is logically impossible".

If you want to define your god into impossibility, that's fine by me.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame we are proving something about anything that fits the definition of "god".

Then before you can find proof, you have to know what it is you're trying to prove. I guess you'll have to define God.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Fonceai Then before you can find proof, you have to know what it is you're trying to prove. I guess you'll have to define God.

If I were to define god differently than you, and put that god through the deductive process to prove that it could not exist, I wouldn't apply it to your definition of god. That would constitute the four terms fallacy.

The best I can do is test one definition at a time. In this thread, I've proven the following:

If a theist tries to use the big bang's ignition as proof for god because of causality, they will be contradicting their own belief, because they would then have no precursor to their own god (Unless otherwise stated in their religion).

[Fonceai]

Ahhh, you misunderstood again.

I'll just spell it out for you, Kame...

The first point of Post #32 was that the logical process is as human an invention as God. No one is born knowing it, it must be learned.

So citing logical reasoning as proof against God is as equally valid as citing that God is defined as logically transcendent as proof of God.

The second point of Post #32 was that humans reason out conclusions all the time that don't conform to anything logical. But to them their logic is valid. So the human-defined rules of logic aren't infallible.

The third point of Post #32 was that saying that God can't exist because the laws of science contradict a definition of God is like saying a Ferrari can't go faster than 30 MPH because of a human defined speed limit.

God is the Ferrari. Our limits don't redefine the capabilities of a Ferrari, just as our laws of science don't define the capabilities of God.

Also...

Kame, Post #1 Your deity transends physics? Fantastic, your deity is physically impossible. Kame, Post #35 This really isn't about the laws of science.

Which is it? Do you want to cite how physics makes deities impossible, or do you not want to bring the laws of science into this?

Quote by: Kame The application of force to drive in a nail is also a human invention.

We discovered the concept of force. We didn't invent it. I think the concept of force was around before us, don't you?

<points at the mile-wide impact crater in Arizona, the Gulf of Mexico, the craters on the Moon...>

Quote by: Kame If a theist tries to use the big bang's ignition as proof for god because of causality, they will be contradicting their own belief, because they would then have no precursor to their own god (Unless otherwise stated in their religion).

This point is flawed. You'd be presuming to say what the Big Bang was, and what existence was like before it.

Conclusively defining the Big Bang is like defining God. You can't really prove your definition is correct.

---

Could you please address your contradictions and retract them so we can focus?

And then could you address the three points as I clarified them so you can understand?

I'm curious to hear your input.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think you've succeeded, considering we weren't contradicting your point.

[Kamehameha34]

Ahhh, you misunderstood again.

Don't expect any response from me from now on. I've had enough of this.